Form, Function, Finesse: A Brave New Land Rover Conquers a Greener Frontier

In the enthusiast's dream, all sports cars have manual transmissions and all SUVs are body-on-frame. But as so often is the case, reality does not intersect with our fantasies. Ferraris -- save for one -- no longer have manual transmissions, and car-based crossovers are rapidly pushing traditional SUVs to the brink of extinction. In a world that appears increasingly hostile to an all-SUV brand like Land Rover, adaptation is the only option. Some adaptations are failures. Others are Motor Trend Sport/Utility of the Year winners. The Range Rover Evoque is most certainly the latter.

But how? The Evoque is, after all, based on the Land Rover LR2, a vehicle many of you would be surprised to learn is still on sale today. Just as the LR2 was an impressive improvement on the Freelander, the Evoque is an evolutionary leap over the LR2. Though we can confirm that Land Rover did not consult us on the Evoque's development, you'd be forgiven for wondering if the R&D team used our six criteria as guidelines, as the vehicle satisfies each one so completely.

The evoque is meant to appeal to the buyer who ranks style, content, and fuel efficiency above approach and departure angles.

Advancement In Design
The Evoque is a striking vehicle. We don't envy any designer tasked with making an SUV sexy and sophisticated, as they are by traditional definition boxy and utilitarian vehicles. When we see fantastical concepts like the Evoque-preceding LRX, we can't help but shrug off hopes it might be produced, as experience has taught us better. Every now and then, though, an automaker will surprise you. To see the Evoque arrive in showrooms within millimeters of the concept's dimensions is a dream come true.

Throughout our test, the Evoque drew more comments than any other contender. From its aggressive stance to its big wheels, devilishly raked windshield, and daring roofline, the Evoque continually elicited compliments from the staff as well as passers-by. The "Coupe," in particular, was near universally admired for its uncompromising fashion-first motif. The better part of a decade has passed since a two-door SUV was sold in America (Wrangler excluded), and Land Rover's willingness to gamble on an essentially dead body style is as refreshing as it is surprising. We appreciated the Evoque's interior, too. Our editors were enamored of the stylish layout, roominess, and high-quality materials. Some complaints were registered against the parts sharing with Jaguar and Ford, and with the somewhat slow response from the vastly improved infotainment system, but while several editors questioned whether the Evoque was more Land Rover or Range Rover, none considered these concerns deal-breakers.Engineering Excellence
The fact that the Evoque is no less capable or useable than the LR2 is icing on a delicious cake. You would expect such a rakish roofline would wreak havoc on passenger and cargo space, but that simply isn't the case. Much to our delight, even the tallest members of our staff found themselves comfortable in the front and rear seats of both body styles, despite the presence of a sunroof that would shame Dallas Cowboys Stadium, a testament to Land Rover's impressive packaging. While the roof does impact vertical clearance, the Evoque's cargo space is sufficiently deep to fit oversized luggage and your weekly allotment of mega-store purchases.

Full-time AWD comes from a Haldex Gen IV system that sends power to the rear wheels as the fronts begin to slip.

Equally impressive are the improvements to the vehicle's dynamics. Despite sharing a platform with the LR2, the Evoque performs considerably better in every measure. Extensive use of aluminum, composites, and other lightweight materials lightened the Evoque by more than 350 pounds compared with the LR2, earning it the distinction of being the lightest Land Rover ever built. That lightness helps the vehicle reach 60 mph from a stop nearly 2 seconds faster than the fastest LR2; increases average skidpad holding by more than 0.05 g; and takes more than a second off the quarter-mile time, and more than a second and a half off the figure-eight time. Beyond outperforming its predecessor, the Evoque performs on par with its direct competition, despite offering one of the smallest engines in the class.
The cumulative improvement is most evident in the Evoque's handling and road-holding. It was consistently commended for its controlled body roll, tenacious grip, and sports car reflexes. While the adaptive suspension-equipped Dynamic model garnered heavy praise for its highly responsive steering and nimble handling, it was also dinged for its very hard ride. The standard Pure model was likewise praised for its impressive handling, and for its considerably less-compromised ride quality. Luxury-car levels of isolation had many an editor traveling much more quickly than anticipated as the perky engine doled out strong, linear power that makes the Evoque deceptively quick and all the more fun to drive fast. Well-chosen ratios and intelligent programming had the six-speed transmission moving quickly and consistently to the best gear for the style of driving asked of it.
Off-road, the engine's meaty torque band paired nicely to Land Rover's latest Terrain Response handling system to turn the corner-carver into a credible rally machine. Retaining all the surprisingly capable LR2's clearances and employing the latest version of Haldex's AWD system, the Evoque easily conquered our off-road test. Grip from the street-biased tires was impressive in the dirt, particularly in the sandy hill start, where the Evoque never stuttered. Its various off-road modes allow the driver to tailor the engine, transmission, stability control, and traction control responses to the terrain under assault and permit a comfortable level of oversteer before stepping in. Coupled with adjustable hill descent control, the Evoque generated a great deal of driver confidence both on- and off-road.

I have a 2013 Evoque Dynamic. I loved the looks, it's nimbleness, and stereo, but I get 22 mpg highway, and I cannot drive around 30 mpg in traffic as the turbo jumps in at the slightest touch, causing jarring over acceleration, which makes you pull your foot off the pedal and try again. So annoying I asked LR to buy it back - I paid $62k and they want to give me $42k, so now I am stuck in a vehicle that is the most annoying thing to drive EVER, and sucks gas like a V6. My 4.2L 2002 X-5 got 20 mpg on the highway, and jumped off the line. The Evoque has NOTHING off the line until the turbo winds up, which takes about 3 seconds. Just enough to get you T-boned crossing a busy street.

This is my first Land Rover and will be my last. It is a HORRIBLE experience to be stuck in a vehicle that does not function well and does not perform like, and have to keep paying over $1000/month on it.

I like the look but not the engine options. There are only one. No turbo or larger engine available. Price is high for such a small SUV! If you got the high end model with all the options; I think you could reach the low $60K! No extend warranty included either. Add $3K more for that!

It's better on-road, and off, than pretty much any other SUV here.And it looks twice as good as anything else here, inside and out.It's overpriced by about $5k, and has limited towing, and a smallish cargo areaOne thing Evoque has the others don't?It has "It"! "It" makes it the Winner!BD

This is basically a car with more ground clearance. I really think the CUVs and SUVs should be separated for this award because the true deserving SUVs are now getting overlooked. Either way the rules for choosing a winner in this segment should change because the automakers have changed the segment so much in the past decade.

@TheDodgeMan.on.FB LOL your name doesn't for sure make you unbiaised by any means LOLWho cares about the economy ... a well executed vehicule is a well executed vehicule .. there will always be more or less practical vehicules out there but this comparo is for ALL suv's .. and seems this one had the most going for it AS A WHOLE .. it will not fit everyone's needs as any other of the one's there.. for MY personnal taste, this one would be my choice .. but if I had 2 kids and a RV, I'd go for something else..

Good choice! and great to see the unveiling live on CNBC, with Angus MacKenzie and Phil LeBeau. Great looking vehicle, with real off road capability, but I don't think I would buy one. Range Rovers typically rank near the bottom when it comes to quality. I'll wait for the long term test results.

They make some of the most incredible diesels that won't see the light of day because of federal regulations. In the UK, for the equivalent of $39,000 you can get an Evoque in a turbo diesel that will get over 45 US miles per gallon. That's flirting near a Prius' numbers. Good luck getting that in a six or eight cylinder engine. If you'd like to see those in the US, write your congressperson.Whoever said it looks like an Isuzu Axiom is an idiot.The approach/departure angles are different because the coupe and four door variants have different body kits on them.Why should the Wrangler win? It hasn't changed for about 60 years. I love the Defender for the same reasons most of you love the Wrangler, but I'm not going to argue that it should win SUV of the year. Also, the Evoque was not designed by Ford. And the best parts of the Explorer (namely the terrain management system) were designed by Land Rover. They kept the technology because they paid for it. Get your facts straight.

Are you all serious? Yes, it is priced $20,000 more than some of the others in this category. It's a *luxury* truck. Jeep and Mini are not luxury brands. For its direct competition, a starting price of around $44,000 is reasonable, especially given its standard equipment. After selling them for years, I cannot tell you how many times a prospective BMW or Mercedes customer have tried to say how they can get an X5 or ML for thousands cheaper. Look at the options list, and by the time you add their add-ons to Land Rover's standard equipment, it's a bargain.Yes, we're in a depressed economy. What in the heck does that have to do with the design, function, or qualities of any SUV? Being the SUV of the year doesn't mean that everyone can afford it, and it never has been a deciding factor (in any point in time).It has a turbocharged 4 cylinder engine because it has to. Land Rover doesn't have other coupes or sedans to hedge its CO2 emissions or fuel economy ratings against like other automakers. They make SUVs.

OK! MOTORTREND IS PICKING THIS AS THE SUV OF THE YEAR WELL I WOULD HAVE TO DISAGREE ITS WAY OVERPRICED FOR A 4CYL, REMEMBER RECESSION THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN A FACTOR WHEN PICKING THE FAVORITE. NOT EVERYBODY CAN GO OUT AND BUY THIS, THERE ARE PEOPLE IN AMERICA WITHOUT JOBS, NO HOMES AND YOU PICK A 40K VEHICLE AS THE WINNER? (FAIL AND NOT VERY PRACTICAL)

Motor Trend has always liked Fords, but since they couldn't nominate the Explorer in good conscience, they picked a look alike, designed when Ford owned the company. I agree with the others that if Motor Trend was truly objective, the best Wrangler ever (the current 2012) should have won. It is the quintessential American SUV, since 1941.

Ok,I like this. But tell me I am seeing things. Remember Isuzu's SUV based on the Rodeo, what was it called? oh yeah, Axiom, right! Now lets go back for a minute. This LAND ROVER RANGE ROVER, for all it's hype is exactly the same design. Add a different name, new Technology and ask $53k for it! whow! and people will buy it, with an attitude like " see me

Wow this is predictable. As I watched the video previewing the SUV of the year award I knew that this award was going to go to either the Mercedes Benz M-Class or the Range Rover Evoque. Why? Any manufacturer can add thousands of dollars on the MSRP of a vehicle and make it a great automobile. The base price on the Evoque is roughly $20k more than the base price of any other vehicle in its compact SUV segment. Furthermore the Evoque is touted as an efficient vehicle targeted at tackling high fuel prices with its 4-cylinder. Really? The fuel economy of the Evoque was right in line with the rest of the field outside of the Mini Countrymen, and the manufacturer suggests premium gasoline. So where is the big fuel savings? Not coincidentally, the horsepower and torque ratings are well below any other competitors' other than the Mini.I guess this SUV is probably exactly what it is intended for as one other person commented on here. It is basically another piece of bling for a doctor or lawyer to put on.

While I understand all the comments about how this thing will only go off-road if its lessee has too many cosmos at happy hour, I see MT's logic. They're giving an award for a vehicle that moves the "SUV" market forward in some significant way, and as we all know, the SUV market is a new and different animal than the old sport utility vehicle market.I worked at a VW dealership to save up some money for grad school, right about the time that the Touareg made its debut. I don't know about subsequent refreshes, but the original was actually quite capable off road. VW splurged on reasonably extensive, specialized training to help a sales staff that was accustomed to peddling Jettas communicate effectively with offroad enthusiasts. I sold a *lot* of them, and you know what? Among all those buyers, not one single cr*p was given about offroad ability. I was left thinking how dumb VW was for wasting money on unwanted features, and missing the coveted $30k base price. The Evoque looks like a bullseye by comparison

Garbage. An overweight and overpriced status symbol with little true off road ability,undetermined long term reliability prospects and a Ford 4 cylinder where a German or Asian V6 should be ?? No thanks. I knew the fix was in when I read all the negative comments on the Durango over the weekend. I personally would have gone with the Wrangler, since I think it is the ultimate in livable off road vehicles and represents a huge step forward for Jeep !!

The Grand Cherokee debuted before the Durango and was one of 2011 contenders.Although I understand better why the Cayenne won last year, I agree that the Jeep and especially the QX56 were very competitive proposals.If Value was assessed in a similar manner, the Cayenne would need many thousands to provide the equipment offered by the QX and Jeep.But I still believe that mechanics (efficiency) and technology should be more relevant than the other factors. That's why I say that the cayenne is a good winner. It's really challenging to make such big SUV behave like that (on and off road, accelerating, braking and turning while keeping decent composure)I believe Motortrend wouldn't have awarded the Evoque if it was a last year's contender (Best case scenario it would be 4th)

I had a chance to see both the MB and the Evoque during the IAA in Frankfurt and the interior quality is not comparable. Actually places like the arm rest console were below average.Regarding seats, the M is much better than the Evoque. Even without leather. Here in Europe the Evoque would be comparable to a X1 or Q3 (actually Auto Bild published a comparison test between the three and the Evoque was third). They tested the diesel engine though.

I didn't like it at first, and when I think SUV, I think bigger vehicle, but I had the chance to go for a test drive in one. Comfortable yes, peppy yes, roomy only if your petite. Overall, I was taken back and impressed with it. A lot of thought went into this vehicle. Of course if you know anything about marketing, this vehicle is pretty much designed for females (minus the dynamic package). The price is about right because you get many standard features. Face it, MB cars don't even give you real leather unless you pay for it. As for demand, every one in the NY area is sold already and I'm sure they will continue to sell in all the big cities.

I'm just curious as to why the Jeep Grand Cherokee wasn't included? Didn't it come out the same time as the Durango? And I just can't help but think it fits the mold of SUV better than many of the CUV's in this test...

I don't completely agree your verdict.The Evoque is surely a good looking car and it represents a huge improvement over the older Range / Land Rovers.When drivers and consumers think about engineering in the auto world what are they looking for? I believe we all want more performance with less gas (compare with the much bigger and heavier German proposals), better ride and practicality and better infotainment systems.I don't think the Evoque is a breakthrough in these areas.And despite the standard equipment, let's not say that it offers good value when it costs more than the X3 with 300hp and only 5k less than M class. And when you start factoring depreciation, maintenance and repair costs and fuel consumption you will realize that the car is not a good value preposition.

To take exception with some of the posts, I don't consider a Wrangler to be an SUV. It's unique, and especially misses any conceivable definition of "utility" (although the 4 door Unlimited model comes a bit closer). The Evoque is an SUV, a fashion statement for lawyers and secretaries who want to impress their neighbors without getting dirty.

2lolo While not underestimating many peoples struggle of late, plenty of people have a good job and are making enough money to buy this or other vehicles.Your garbage about wealth and not paying taxes is sophomoric at best. Get out of moms basement, get a job then you will think differently.

okay im slightly mad because: 1. this will sell in small numbers 2. its impractical and does not have much space. 3. its a glorified sport wagon like a bmw x6 4. it comes with a freaken ford 4banger 5. its exspenisve as heck and does not apply to the mass consumerdont get me wrong people will buy this because ive already seen one. it is a cool looking SUV thing, and im all for them to camparisons in this category. MTs comparisons have gotten rather annoying because the jeep is really the only SUV in the entire camparison the rest of crossovers

Am I the only one who think that in order to call something a SUV some off-road requirement should be meet? I don't ask them to have the capability of a Wrangler but I believe a bare minimum should be required.

McraffeyLand Rover isn't using it to turn into a small bus.It's a mid-sized car platform, and Land Rover plays to the platforms strengthsFord just saw it as a way to save money, and slap enough bells and whistles on it so that The People wouldn't notice the design and structure were lacking for their intended purpose. They were right! Ford is making a killing.......BD

Um...is it just me or is it weird that while Motor Trend rightly bashed the Ford Explorer in a fashion I've never quite seen before for it's dated platform and under-performing Ecoboost engine, the Evoque, which shares its platform and engine with the Explorer, is chosen to be their SUV of the year? Come on! If any vehicle deserved it this time around, it was the Durango.

Over priced? Get out of here Grand cherokees, Explorers, Durangos cost 40k in the right trim. Shoot most fully loaded cuv/suv"s cost nearly or more than 40k. This thing is completely within reach of a-lot of people compared to the 70-120k porsche they tested last year.This thing Won for all the right reasons and I think it was a way better choice then another jeep wrangler. Great job Land Rover for making such a nice vehicle. This vehicle is the first I;ve ever seen look so much like its concept.

Well done Motor Trend. Beautiful videos and pictures and summaries. Perfect choice.A beautiful SUV, that simply pushes the needle for the luxury SUV market way up, past X3 and Q5 to become number 1. Inside and out it is picture perfect, the Range Rover Evoque.Honorable mentions to Jeep for all the improvements.Disappointment of the year, Ford Explorer, which is nothing but a minivan in disguise.

It seems to be Motortrend is forgetting the 'U' is a part of SUV. Where is the utility? I don't believe you can put 1 mountain bike in the back of that thing without removing both wheels, the steering wheel and the seat. Or if you're a camper let's give putting 1 weekend of camping supplies for 4 in the back of that thing, another no starter. These comparo's increasingly about what's new and looks the best. I'll bet you you'll burn twice the gas my Ford truck will burn - by the time you make enough trips to get all the stuff my true 4x4 can haul in one trip. And that estimate includes dragging your cutesy Evoque up the mountain a each time.

I wonder how many of these they are hoping to sell. This market segment is pretty small and now we have another vying for a piece of it. I will be curious to see what the transaction prices will be after a year or two being on the market. Nice looking though...

Alright, I'd definitely say this is the best looking SUV out there right now, and I really really like the 2-door version, but with just a 4-cyl and no manual transmission, I'd still say the Jeep is a better *SUV*. This is more of a car, but it's a very beautiful one.I really like the snow and water pictures, by the way.

One comparison they actually did competently!They picked the most desirable new SUV of the year, and it can perform like a star, on or off-road.Just don't compare it for value vs. a mainstream compact SUVBD